Essay Preview: Mr.
Report this essay
Travis Foltz
10/18/01
Pol. Sci. 422
Conceptualizing Global Environmental Politics
This essay will respond to the central problem facing global environmental politics insofar as the resolution of such problems as global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, the loss of biodiversity, and many other transnational environmental issues rests upon some sort of consensus among extremely diverse groups. These are considered global problems not only because of their apocalyptic potential but they are also unique in that the “terrain where they occur [is] property that could be claimed by everyone or by no one. They [are] global also in that no nation [is] fortunate enough to be insulated from their effects”(Guha 139). From this worrisome background, the starting point of this essay begins with the question that Ramachandra Guha leaves the reader in his conclusion of the global history of environmentalism: he asks “one world or two?” In other words, Guha challenges the reader to wonder whether humanity will be able to cooperate on a global scale to avert environmental disaster, or if we will be forever mired in the North vs. South debate with “the industrialized and mainly affluent countries of the North [on one side] and the industrializing and mostly still-poor countries of the South [on the other side]”(Guha141). This essay will examine the ways that Guha has already worked towards constructing a theoretical consensus among global environmentalists with an aim towards conceptualizing what global cooperation might look like.
Take, for example, Guhas pairing of the environmentalism of Indias Mahatma Gandhi
with the “back-to-the-land” movement in the “North.” This is significant for two reasons. First, Guha argues that Gandhi
and the earliest of modern environmentalists in 19th century Britain are united by their shared disgust of the Industrial Revolution and a corresponding ” focus on manual labor, [an] elevation of the village as the supreme form of human society, [and] a… rejection of industrial culture as violent”(Guha 24). Gandhi
sums up the “back-to-the-land” critique of both North and South nicely as he “thought the distinguishing characteristic of modern civilization is a multiplication of wants…[and] wholeheartedly detest[ed] this mad desire to destroy distance and time, to increase animal appetites, and go to the ends of the earth in search of their satisfaction”(Guha 20). Thus, Guha establishes a linkage between environmentalists that transcends time and place. But impressive as this pairing may seem it is more important to understand the ways that Gandhi
s differing historical and material circumstances inform the “back-to-the-land” ethic of the “North.” Due to the fact that Gandhi
did not yet live in an industrialized society his environmentalism tended to stress more practical and instrumental ways in which industrialization could be averted whereas the “North” was characterized by a degree of romanticism. In other words, for “Northerners” to stress “back-to-the-land” was in fact a departure from the status quo but for Gandhi
he had no choice. To point out the difference between Gandhi
s pragmatism and the northern “back-to-the-landers” is not to disparage either side. Rather, in a wider sense, it is valuable to know that “global cooperation” will require not only consensus (to a certain degree) about the negative aspects of industrialization but will also require self-reflexive acknowledgements that account for differing historical and material circumstances.
Furthermore, on top of recognizing differences among historical and material circumstances the environmental discourse will need to account for differing views of how to best “manage” the destructive propensity of industrialization. For instance, in 1972 Gandhi
s own daughter (Indira Gandhi
), and prime minister of India is said to have argued that “if pollution [is] the price of progress, her people wanted more of it”(Guha 112). As this quote indicates, although Gandhi
and the “back-to-the-landers” offer a valuable alternative to industrialization, at this time it does not seem realistic to hope that all humans will scorn the conveniences of modern-industrialized life. Environmentalists that have sought to make the industrialization “better” (as in, less destructive to the environment) are termed by Guha as “Scientific Conservationists”. They are united by a commitment to “careful research in the empirical mode, rather than on a purely artistic or affective response…. To work on taming [industrial societys] excesses”(Guha 6). Some would argue that this is evidence of a schism in environmental theory itself. From a more holistic view, the work done by environmentalists advocating a life of simplicity and those working to make industrialization more “eco-friendly” simply indicates that in order to reach global consensus a “division of labor” needs to be accepted and nurtured in the common fight to preserve the environment.
Additionally, Guha also shows how the common fight to preserve the environment will be tested at times by a multiplicity of forces but also that it is possible to synthesize this conflict into a more progressive environmental ethic. Within Guhas vocabulary, some good examples of conflicts within northern conceptions of the “wilderness ideal” are exemplified by the debate between John Muir and Aldo Leopold. On one hand, both John Muir and Aldo Leopold advocated the idea that some “wild” areas should be kept protected from human forces but Muir adopted the hard-line stance of “the wilderness lover; he was hostile to any force or form that might disturb the integrity of nature”(Guha, 57). On the other hand, Leopold was not only able to synthesize the valuable lessons of Muir but he was also able to address the shortfalls of the “back-to-the-landers.” For Leopold, “responsible human behavior outside the national parks was perhaps even more important than the protection of wild species within them”(Guha, 57). Thus, Leopold enveloped both the “back-to-landers” and Muirs “wilderness ideal” without a dismissal of the industrial world. In this sense, Leopold also intersects with the “scientific conservationists” aim to improve industrialism. The Harvard